Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[VRWC_minion]

Shortly after the vote, President Bush released a statement saying he would sign the measure into law, despite "legitimate Constitutional questions."

[aristeides]

Incumbent protection is the name of the game.

[michigander]

Why don't you stop your pontificating and give us YOUR solution -- who is YOUR candidate -- and how EXACTLY will you be getting the power to undo this?

It's about time you stopped taking potshots and trashing everybody and anything and put some CONCRETE PLANS on the table, bill.

Let's have it.

Well, I know you weren't talking to me directly but, my name does happen to be bill so here's my, exact way to undo this...

The President issues a statement that his administration will not prosecute any charges brought under Public Law No: 107-155, Title II, Subtitle A, Section 201, subsection 3, as he has issued a blanket pardon covering anyone that would be convicted of such an offense.

The President already has "the power to undo this" if he so chooses.
A sort of Presidential nuclear option as it were.
Will the President snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

[hellinahandcart]

If you're keeping a list, please add me and sauropod.

[Jaidyn]

I thought you might like to read what the SC said about this. The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said. The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674.

[aristeides]

Anybody know whether enforcement of this act is limited to the Justice Department? Do parties and/or candidates have the right to bring complaints of alleged violations to the Federal Election Commission (or to federal court)?

[Congressman Billybob]

The interesting thing about the Alien and Sedition Laws is that they were NEVER found unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was a weak institution at the time, and it never ventured to declare them bad.

President Jefferson, on taking office, pardoned and freed the jailed editors of "Republican" newspapers, who had been jailed by the previous Federalist Administration. And those laws were simply allowed to expire.

It was not until nearly a century and a half later that the Supreme Court stated that the A&S laws "were unconstitutional" in the process of deciding the case of New York Times v. Sullivan. Talk about locking the barn door after the horse was stolen.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Raw Capitalism Revealed," discussion thread. FOR A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[Amerigomag]

I sit in utter amazement at the number of Feepers who attack the outrage generated by this court's decision and the actions of our president in this matter.

Shame on you all.

[MineralMan]

"The President already has "the power to undo this" if he so chooses.
A sort of Presidential nuclear option as it were.
Will the President snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?"

Why would he do that? He signed the bill. Now, to do what you suggest, he would look like a fool. Nope, he's going to have to stick with what he signed.

But it's OK. Everyone will forget about this in a day or two. After all, we have Michael Jackson and Kobe to think about, and Christmas is almost here.

By 1/1/04, there won't be anything even here on FR about this issue.

[Burkeman1]

If you had to describe CFR in two words it would indeed be "incumbent protection".

[aristeides]

Presidential pardons don't apply to civil cases, so, if the CFR law gives anybody a right to bring a civil suit, that doesn't solve the problem.

Also, I'm not at all sure that prospective pardons are possible. I think there may be case law that, for a pardon to be effective, the crime must have been committed before the pardon was issued.

[stljoe71]

Amen Politics is no longer about ideology its about rooting for your team to win. Being a republican has about as much significance as being a detroit tigers fan. You are happy when your team wins but there is no deeper meaning than that.

The leftfielder has no ideology you can support nor apparently does our president.

[Who is John Galt?]

No, because [the Sedition Act] was held constitutional by the process it that it self requires.

Really? And which "process" was that? Be specific.

...the CFR law is now officially constitutional.

LOL! So, if Congress passed a law requiring that all left-handed Americans be summarily executed, with their total wealth transfered to the President and the Supreme Court Justices, and the President and high court "agreed" with Congress on the matter, you would tell us the law was "constitutional?" How nice. How very, very nice.

In reality, you have just dispensed with the written Constitution, and substituted for it a judicial oligarchy. Congratulations...

Offensive to me personally.

Gosh, I'm sure glad to learn that anything you find "offensive" is now officially "bad constitutional law." By all means, please keep us informed - we wouldn't want to mistake "bad constitutional law" for 'good constitutional law'...

;>)

[Dead Corpse]

I've just been staying out of it. Others, like Sabertooth, are hitting all the right points. Typical from the Flying Monkeyies though.

As nice as it is to see familiar things, their GOP uber alles lockstep is one thing I wouldn't mind never seeing again.

[VRWC_minion]

LOL! So, if Congress passed a law requiring that all left-handed Americans be summarily executed, with their total wealth transfered to the President and the Supreme Court Justices, and the President and high court "agreed" with Congress on the matter, you would tell us the law was "constitutional?" How nice. How very, very nice

Yes, of course. It would be constitutional. However, it would also be my right to revolt but its still constitutional.

I think you don't understand the meaning of the word.

[Congressman Billybob]

The simple fact is that campaign finance offers neither sex nor violence, and it is a complex issue that most news readers don't understand, nor are they able to explain it in simple English. Net result, this case gets headline treatment, "Court Okays CFR."

Then the TV talking heads move on to simple subjects that DO involve sex and/or violence. Sad but true.

The fight on this issue must be brought by the small minority of American citizens who do understand it, and do realize that it matters. That means us.

John / Billybob

[Who is John Galt?]

Actually, all she'd have to do is change her registration to Republican, then she'd be able to do whatever she wanted...

LOL!

;>)

[Dead Corpse]

Yes, of course. It would be constitutional.

No. It wouldn't be. If it was listed that such a thing could be done by government, expressly IN THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF, then it would be Constitutional. That is why there is an Amendment process. Mere passage of a bill into law is NOT rising to the standard of Constitutional Amendment.

Get a grip...

Also, some of you REALLY need to crack a Websters and look up the difference between "infringed", and "regulated".

[michigander]

As far as I know, Presidential pardons are absolute.

---

Why would he do that?

When the President sign the bill into law he stated (source):

"I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising, which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import in the months closest to an election. I expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate legal questions as appropriate under the law."

It appears to be his last opportunity to stand up for his statement.

[aristeides]

Actually, all she'd have to do is change her registration to Republican, then she'd be able to do whatever she wanted...

Might cause some cognitive dissonance here. Then again, it might not.